<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <<a href="mailto:jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca">jean-marc.valin@usherbrooke.ca</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">>> There general idea with Ogg has been to distinguish non-fatal from<br>
>> fatal errors. libogg reports these by returning -1 while still<br>
>> returning the next valid bit of data.<br>
><br>
> ok, would non-fatal translate into a SHOULD recommendation in the<br>
> spec, and fatal translate into a MUST?<br>
<br>
</div>I assume there there are cases where a MUST isn't respected, yet libogg<br>
is still able to recover something. If it's just a SHOULD that isn't<br>
respected, it shouldn't be considered as an error in the first place.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>Hmm, good point. Maybe it requires a MUST specification... But then, it would not be conformant to have a partial packet on the last page....<br>
<br>S.</div></div>